Haryana

StateCommission

A/615/2017

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAGWAN PARSU RAM COLLEGE OF ENGG. - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                               

First Appeal No.   :       615 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution :      19.05.2017

                                                Date of Decision          :        22.09.2017

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through its Authorized Signatory, Plot No.6, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Near Metro Pillar No.81, New Delhi.

Local Address : SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Narain Complex, Rohtak Branch through its Authorized Signatory.

                              Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Bhagwan Parsu Ram College of Engineering run by Bhagwan Parsu Ram Ashram Sewa Samiti, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat through Sh. Sant Lal Sharma, Treasurer of Smiti.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Lohchab Motors, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opposite Sector 1, HUDA, Rohtak through its Authorized Representative.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                                        

Present:              Sh. Punit Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) are in appeal against the order dated March 20^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Bhagwan Parsu Ram College of Engineering, Gohana-complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed.  For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “9.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party No.1 and 2 shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle, that is, Rs.6,98,250/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint, that is, August 19^th, 2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C, Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of Transferee etc to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”      

 

2.      The complainant got its vehicle bearing registration No.HR11D-7928 insured with the Insurance Company from August 03^rd, 2011 to August 02^nd, 2012.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6,98,250/-.  On September 21^st, 2011 the vehicle was stolen.  First Information Report No.235 dated September 22^nd, 2011 under Section 379 IPC was registered in the Police Station Mansarover Park, North East Delhi.  The Insurance Company was also immediately informed.  The complainant submitted his claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that the District Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.  The insurance policy was issued at Chennai.  No cause of action or part of cause of action had arisen at Rohtak.   

4.      It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the Insurance Company and completed the necessary formalities.  The only ground taken by the Insurance Company in rejecting the claim of the complainant was that the District Forum, Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because the insurance policy was issued at Chennai.  The plea of the Insurance Company is not tenable in view of the fact that the vehicle was purchased at Rohtak, that is, Lohchab Motors Company Private Limited-opposite party No.3 and in the insurance policy, name of the intermediary is mentioned: Lohchab Motors Company Private Limited-opposite party No.3.  Thus part of cause of action had arisen at Rohtak. The Insurance Company adopted deprecated practice by denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claim lodged with the complainant was otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The Insurance Company should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 22.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK